/r/antisrs is a place for discussion of the reddit and silly/dumb things that redditors post without the circlejerk. We can laugh and then move on.
Dumb things that redditors say is not only constrained to Social Justice issues, just anything that is stupid. And for the time being nothing is considered 'low effort'. Just don't be an asshole nor witchhunt.

Alternate views are allowed and encouraged, since this is a discussion forum.

Everyone is welcome here.

Please limit posts to the topics mentioned above. Meta if you must.

Please keep discussion civil. No stalking or harassment please.

Please discuss in good faith.

No memes or image macros.

Be warned that if you post anything here, SRS will probably ban you from their subs. (Maybe still?)

Meta related posts are once again allowed. However meta that breaks the basic rules of this sub will be removed. Meta that attempts to cause pointless drama will also be removed.

[In which fran continues their tradition of making weekly discussions on various aspects of social justice]

You know what really bugs me about the concept of privilege?

It's so damn tacky and accusatory. It implies, depending on the privileged group, explicitly or implicitly that the group in question is invisibly oppressing the other groups without actively participating in discriminating actions - hell, basically by just existing in comparison.

It is also impossible for a privileged person to find out they have privilege. Much like it is impossible for a sufferer from sluggisly progressing schizophrenia to determine that they suffer from sluggishly progressing schizophrenia.

Is it fair though?

Let's take the "able bodied privilege". What is it? I am not able-bodied: I am lame and have very poor eyesight. As an able bodied person, you, dear reader, have able bodied privilege such as the ability to walk fast and run and not bump into things. Able bodied people oppress me by leaving their privilege unchecked and discriminate me by assuming that not bumping into things is desirable.

Oh wait that makes no sense.

It is actually obvious that a person who "doesn't have able bodied privilege" is actually suffering from disadvantages stemming from their disability.

Fat people suffer from disadvantages such as numerous health risks. However, fit people who work out have privilege of having better health and being perceived better in society.

Tall people have privilege in the form of being able to take stuff from higher shelves without a ladder. Short people have disadvantage in the form of not being able to take stuff from regular shelves without a ladder.

And so on, and so forth.

In other words, privilege and disadvantage only make sense if you determine normalcy and compare it to said normalcy. When criteria are determined, the idea that you can't talk about privilege unless you drink the social justice kool aid vanishes, and the objective ways to determine privilege instead appear, making privilege - for once - a valid concept. Something that's actually verifiable and falsifiable.

Also, it is entirely possible for two groups to have privilege compared to each other. Ex: Women have the female privilege of being excluded from conscription.

P.S. The joke was that sluggishly progressing schizophrenia doesn't actually exist. It's just a way to put people into mental institutions by accusing them of having a disorder that can only be diagnosed by the very doctors that make the accusation.

One thing about privilege one should recognize is that the way its presented by the social justice sallies is as a highly self serving political tool. Any group can always wield it as a bludgeon in any discussion to claim moral superiority and negate any point raised by the opposition. Hence why actual conversations about race, gender, class or any other issues are nye impossible since one side has developed a rhetorical labyrinth that ensures no matter what the conversation will be more like a lecture then actual dialog.

They simply take it too far. God forbid you try to compare white women to black men. Most SRSers would say the black man has more "privilege," by virtue of being a man. God forbid you try to compare transsexuals to bisexuals, or "pansexuals," or fuckin "demisexuals." Like many have already said, it doesn't help to play the "Oppression Olympics," but that's what SRSers usually do.

Why would they even feel the need to designate the various groups of the LGBT movement? On the one hand, it helps them find similar individuals with shared experiences. Awesome. On the other hand, it's created a situation where many gay people assume that bisexuality doesn't really exist (you're just gay but unwilling to admit it). And now when you're a member of an "oppressed" group who doesn't respond to the oppression with vitriol, you're considered a supporter of the oppression. So these people who are supposed to protect you are now oppressing you in much the same way.

[–]frogmathey'll run it to the ground, I tell ya!10 points11 points12 points5 years ago(1 child)

The problem is that they like to define various acts as "microagressions," so even when you're not technically doing anything to oppress someone, they can still interpret it as oppression, as long as they make up some weird logic to justify that perspective. So for "privilege," you're automatically privileged by being a white male, and you're automatically oppressing minorities just because you exist.

And they tend to ignore classism altogether, even though it'd make sense that a black kid living in the suburbs with rich parents would probably have more privilege than a white kid living in the city with poor parents. Though I'll admit that situations like that are exceptions to the rule -- at the same time, many SRSers act as if those situations don't even exist in the first place.

It doesn't seem to help their case because their premise is both one they invented themselves, or one so stepped in jargon that nobody outside the koolaid drinkers of social justice sallies will actually understand or accept.

It is a diversion tact to remove you from any place of authority by which you might speak.

You could have a masters in women's studies. But if you argue with a SRS privilege can be used to automatically devalue your comments. It is a lazy term used in place of "I am too lazy to find an actual issue with your point".

Does the principle of privilege exist? Yes but it shouldn't be used in blanket style like SRS uses it. There is more to a person's life and understanding of the world then just their sex or race. Of course SRS is all for this is it a woman or a less represented gender type. Reverse racism can't exist because then SRS would have to admit they are the same sad level of bigotry that they "mock".

What is their beef then? I'm a straight white cis male who is interested in social justice but I can't stand more than a few minutes in that circlejerk. The one time I posted with a question I was instantly banned. Calling redditors out on shit they say is a good idea to me, but what motivates them to throw all discussion out the window? the implicit assumption that an SRSer can never be wrong seems so obviously incorrect I wonder what kind of person would take part in that sub.

This is a typical example of how the concept was developed, vs. how the concept is often used.

In principle, "you have privilege" means you have some kind of advantage you are not aware of.

Imagine you're white, and you're driving through an affluent, mostly white suburb every day for your commute. If you were black, you would be pulled over frequently; but you don't know that. You don't think, "hey, I'm not being pulled over because of my race".

Privilege as a concept is a good thing: it makes you stand back and think about discrimination you don't notice but that still exists.

As you mentioned, everybody has privilege in some situation. When I'm trying to become head of state, I'm probably better off being male. When there's a war ongoing and I don't want to fight, I'm probably better off being female.

I think it is still a misuse of the word privilege. As a matter of common decency shouldn't everyone be able to drive through a neighborhood an be presumed innocent of any crime unless there is a probable reason for suspicion?

Claiming the white driver is privileged makes it seem like the default is to have everyone constantly pulled over, instead of asking, why is the black driver getting constantly pulled over without probable cause.

As a matter of common decency shouldn't everyone be able to drive through a neighborhood an be presumed innocent of any crime unless there is a probable reason for suspicion?

Of course. Reality is different, though.

Claiming the white driver is privileged makes it seem like the default is to have everyone constantly pulled over, instead of asking, why is the black driver getting constantly pulled over without probable cause.

It's supposed to make the white driver think about the fact he isn't pulled over, and see the fact that the black driver is as discrimination.

It's supposed to make the white driver think about the fact he isn't pulled over, and see the fact that the black driver is as discrimination.

Linguistically though I don't think that is the way it ends up sounding. Implying privilege sounds as if one is arguing everyone should constantly be suspected of being criminal, instead of arguing the black driver shouldn't be considered suspect due to circumstances of birth.

Most people in the United States believe one is innocent until proven guilty, thus the white drivers experiences are presumed to be the default or "how it should be," with the black drivers experiences being the aberrational ones that shouldn't exist. Look at the other uses of the word privilege. You have the privilege of being invited to a party. By default you wouldn't be invited, but your granted this special invite. Linguistically arguing the white drivers experiences are a privilege is in some way making them sound less like "how things should be," and more like the aberrational experience that should change.

The "how it should be" argument is important here. You can often see people arguing semantics when discussing rights, arguing that instead some right is a privilege, that they are related but different. A privilege is not something expected or fully developed, but a clear benefit on top of rights.

So if we're arguing linguistics and semantics, privilege is probably not the word to use if we're arguing for ideals of equality, because equality is typically considered a right. So I agree with OP and you in saying this isn't perhaps the best choice of words to describe why white people aren't pulled over more.

The problem remains that privilege is understood in these contexts to mean as ArchangelleFake has described it. Privilege is meant to be a term that reminds those who have it that there are those less privileged in most cases, as a mechanism of awareness for inequality. It is closely tied in this context with oppression. From the Wiki for white privilege:

White privilege differs from conditions of overt racism or prejudice, in which a dominant group actively seeks to oppress or suppress other racial groups for its own advantage. Instead, theories of white privilege suggest that whites view their social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that must be maintained at the expense of others.

There are many possible criticisms of the term privilege, but if the focus is that it is the equivocation of privilege and oppression, it most certainly is not outside of the mouths of many SRSers, for example, who are guilty of more fallacy and bias than is appropriate to mention here.

In the larger contemporary ethical discussion of equality, privilege is a mechanism with which we are able to discuss inequality from both sides, as an elevated status of the privileged, and the subsequent oppression of the underprivileged. There is no necessity of overt and systematic oppression for privilege and oppression to both exist, nor does privilege imply complicity with oppression lest you fail to understand the complexities of the factors which create privilege.

The wiki on first world privilege I think has a much less complicated task of explaining privilege in this way:

First World nations usually have mutual trade and immigration arrangements and treaties that limit the discrimination faced by First-World nationals regarding employment, education and business in other First World countries. The existence of discriminatory laws and barriers across the world, according to First World privilege theory, on balance systematically favor the employment, business, access to education and health care, and subsequently welfare of citizens of First World nations at the cost of the welfare and oppression of the people of developing nations.

Privilege is not, in this sense, a description of the oppressed, but rather the status enjoyed by those who are not oppressed. This is related to an ideal of equality, but it is harder to call a right than it is a privilege. We enjoy a status as first world citizens that those outside of the first world cannot easily enter, by design, possibly by nature. The causes aren't the purpose of this discussion, though they are integral; it's a matter of more case-specific interpretation as to whether we understand where and why privilege exists.

I understand why some are tempted to understand the identification of a privileged group to imply it is an oppressive group since oppression is finely integrated with privilege, but to meld the two is an equivocal fallacy which fails to respectfully explain oppression, and I would argue even protects it in doing so.

Privilege is meant to be a term that reminds those who have it that there are those less privileged in most cases, as a mechanism of awareness for inequality.

Whoever thought the use of the word privilege would adequateness serve that purpose was very foolish about proper communication. Social Justice Warriors might be advised to properly use the English language as its understood by the masses they are trying to convert rather then also trying to rewrite the English language.

My argument would in short, to abandon complex jargon and rewrites of commonly used words that overly confuse and muddle the discussion. Putting it this way, more time is spent debating the meaning of the word racism, privilege, discrimination, then is actually spent fixing the problem faced by black drivers.

I agree with you there, which was my purpose in including equivocation as the main criticism of the term.

I don't know a better word for it, though. Do you disagree that any term for this is necessary? How can one understand or discuss the privileges of a group without using the word privilege? It is not necessary to understand the privilege of one group to help an underprivileged group? I just want to know where this opinion is coming from.

I recall having a discussion about the origin of the term "cis" in aSRS some time ago. People saw SRS using the term derogatorily, and thought they made it up, and therefore rejected it on similar grounds, when there was a very real and important, albeit recent, history behind the word, and ultimately it came down to describing something that formerly had no description that did not imply an abnormal status to trans people.

In the example of the two drivers, it has the unfortunate implication of implying the black drivers experience is default and the white ones is the aberrational, which ideally should be reversed so we can lift the black drivers experiences to be like those of the white ones instead of guilt tripping the white one for having the driving experience of the black one.

Privilege is generally a term reserved for granting someone something that is atypical, not normal, or not how things usually work. I don't typically get invited to this one party, but I am granted the privilege of an invitation. That is how the very word privilege is understood. Since our legal system implies everyone is innocent, the black drivers experience is aberrational, but calling the white drivers experience a privilege implies the opposite of that.

The interest isn't in communication, it's in using the words as a means of achieving political ends. It's been that way since the rise of the Critical Studies movement as the primary intellectual center of left sociology.

It's supposed to make the white driver think about the fact he isn't pulled over, and see the fact that the black driver is as discrimination.

But that makes no sense. Innocence unless proven otherwise is normalcy. Black person is at disadvantage. A white person doesn't have to be accused of oppression because of that if he doesn't even interact with black people at all.

As I said, that's the difference between how the concept was developed and how it is used. It was not supposed to be an accusation; it was supposed to be an invitation to think about non-obvious discrimination.

Let's take the "able bodied privilege". What is it? I am not able-bodied

How would we define able-bodied privilege?

I know this is a tangent but a thought occurs.

I have ADD (no really, this isn't a self diagnosis, I went to a doctor and he said I have a severe case). Does that count as a disability? If yes cool, if not well I have a roommate who has epilepsy so just pretend I'm talking about him.

Anyway, do I have able bodied privilege with this disability? I don't know what it's like to be in a wheelchair so do I? What about Hypothetical Man (able to jump to scenarios in a single bound) in a wheelchair. He may not know what it's like to have ADD. So does that mean neither of us have able bodied privilege or do both of us do?

And if it's both of us it sounds like everyone who doesn't have every disability there is has able bodied privilege.

[–]frogmathey'll run it to the ground, I tell ya!2 points3 points4 points5 years ago(1 child)

Yep. I made a similar point in one of my comments. Compare a black guy to a white girl -- who has more "privilege"? IMO, it's pointless to argue about it in the first place, and there's no reason to differentiate the two "groups." But that's what happens, and then it turns into a game of who's more oppressed -- like in the lgbt sub, the transsexuals came out on top, and gay guys were basically shunned. That's not how it should work.

Oppression Olympics is the logical end result of Social JusticeTM brand Identity Politics, where your right to speak, your right to have an opinion, and your value as person is determined by how much the enlightened ones acknowledge oppression of the demographics you belong to.

I'm legally blind. I wear coke-bottle glasses and my vision still sucks. I hereby declare that in order to avoid oppressing me through my disadvantage, all people with unfairly good sight have to wear glasses which ruin their sight and live in some sort of Harrison Bergeron dystopian nightmare!

[–]frogmathey'll run it to the ground, I tell ya!3 points4 points5 points5 years ago(1 child)

Don't listen to any of those "able-sighted" doctors giving their opinions! They're scum!

If you want some good glasses, go to the other legally blind guy, who clearly knows what he's talking about. They might not help your vision at all, but it feels good to support someone who's shared some of your experiences.

Physical circumstances cannot be privileges. They can be advantages or disadvantages, but they cannot be privileges.

Why? Because privileges are rights. And rights are socially enforced entitlements.

So what is the difference between a right and a privilege?

Universal rights are enforced and supported by almost everyone in society for everyone in society equally, because they see benefit in that. That enforcement may be imperfect and flawed, but that doesn't make a right a privilege. Just because there are people who are harmed doesn't mean the right to bodily integrity isn't universally supported and aspired for everyone by almost everyone.

A privilege is a socially enforced entitlement that is enforced and supported by almost everyone, but not for everyone equally by design. Why? Same reason universal rights are supported: they see benefit in it.

In its most basic form a privilege is just an implementation of division of labor: you are good at doing this, so you should be doing this, you are bad at doing this, so you should not be doing this.

That's the whole point: utilizing division of labor and specialization. Now, when that point falls out of sight, and privileges are seen as valuable for their own sake, and then become institutionalized, privileges give rise to classes where those privileges are blindly enforced. And at that point they usually become counter-productive, swallowing up the universal benefits for which privileges were created in the first place.

The thing is, there are earned privileges. You demonstrated that you are able to (and likely will) use a certain privilege for the benefit of others, so you are given it.
And then there are assumed privileges, that are given to you by birthright, being born or thrown into certain circumstances, may that be class, wealth, geography, sex, race ...

The central point is, privileges are always socially enforced and can only exist because big/powerful parts of society support them and actively enforce them. The reasons for that support can be outdated, stupid, ill advised and completely unconscious and the privilege itself might already defeat its original purpose (like copyright).

When a privilege is supported and enforced only by a powerful minority that is the sole benefactor of it, then, and only then we have oppression.

People who actually think in terms of "privilege" in the real world obviously have never done an honest day's work in their lives. I'll tell you all a story.

My supervisor was asking me why I wasn't getting results in a project so I forensically analysed the equipment in my lab that wasn't working properly and found that it had been deliberately damaged (it's a long story but some PhD student had basically been falsifying his data and shredded his notes too). I went to him and explained this was what happened but he wasn't that interested. He was intrigued that the equipment failures were not accidental, but then when back to asking why I hadn't got any results - again.

I was thinking "this isn't fair, this isn't my fault!". I then quickly realised that there are no prizes for finishing last. I either do or I fail. So using the knowledge from taking everything apart I worked overtime to get everything in working order and my resulting report was lauded by the academics.

So the moral of the story is? Nobody in the real world cares if you are disadvantaged or not. They are just interested in performance. This is the attitude I take with me at all times and I will take it to my grave.

I hate the concept of privilege as there is already a better word, subjectivity. A white female and black male have different subjectivity. They have experienced different things and in different ways. The use of privilege is often to try to set some kind of "scale" for this subjectivity. That "because you have the subjectivity of white male, you are better off" and we don't need to listen to you is bullshit. Understand that every person has a different subjectivity, but you can still listen to them.

This reminds me of the essay the "white privilege" that I had to read in College. I wrote that I think believing others are privileged over you is just a large excuse to fail, because if you fail you believe it isn't your fault because you are being oppressed. And if you don't fail, you believe you are so incredible you succeeded against the odds. You're a classic underdog. Unfortunately, it isn't true

Side note: Slowly progressing schizophrenia is actually an interesting tool.

For those unfamiliar, the Soviet Union coined it as an excuse to eliminate political dissidents. The definition relied on subtle symptoms that manifested themselves at times (episode = disagreement), as well as a broader range of personality traits that could be applied to anyone.

Sluggish schizophrenia continues to exist in Russian version of ICB-10. It's an unpopular diagnosis for its association with punitive psychiatry, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's bullshit. It's just a variety of Schizotypal personality disorder.

I'm currently reading a book called "The Race Card", which is about the difference between legitimate complaints of racism and people simply "playing the race card." One of the chapters is about how often minorities or groups will often face disadvantages due to race, but will incorrectly try to find someone who is at fault. For example, the fact black people are over represented in lower income brackets is a real issue, but many blacks will often try to find someone who is at fault.

Yeah it bugs me too. The word 'privilege' is accusatory. It implies that I have accepted some kind of deal that grants me the advantages associated with my race in full knowledge that others will suffer as a result.

But oh well. That's the word they landed on I guess. How convenient for the angsty, combative SRS types of the world that they just happen to have redefined a word that sounds exactly like it accuses me of wrongdoing for the way I was born to mean something reasonable.

"check your privilege at the door" is incredibly insulting... but not to the people who feel it as insult. It's like saying, "You're so much more capable than us, please lower yourselves so that we can feel equal." Most who hear it don't see it that way, and that's sad. What it leads to is what we see lot on SRS, people who feel powerless, and instead of wanting themselves to do better, they strive to make others to do worse. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down, so they don't attempt to do any better thing for fear of people placing them in the group they were fighting so hard against. I wish they'd understand: don't bring others down, instead rise up!

"Privilege" is a word the social-justice crowd likes to throw around, and I understand what was originally meant by it when they coined that word... but this doesn't change the fact that you have to be in a privileged position to log into reddit to complain about how the White Oppressor Penis People are raping you with their words. Using your iPhone. In the middle of the day.

Oppressed people don't have the time, or the resources, to do what the SRS people do. This is oppression. This is oppression. (If you're looking at the targets' skin color in that last one, by the way, you're missing the point - the targets were chosen not for their race but for their marginalization - "they won't be missed" - and that in today's environment, similar things are happening to individuals whom the general public has written off. "Criminals"... "mentally ill"... and the like.)

Well, it's a touchy subject. Most of us have some sort of privilege, for myself, I'm white, I'm cute, and I'm certain I've gotten things I haven't deserved because of it. That's not to say I never work hard, or that things haven't been tough for me. (Poor, living in a dangerous neighborhood at times, crappy upbringing.)

People who use the idea of privilege to bludgeon you are wrong headed. I try to think of it as getting things you haven't worked for, which I'm pretty sure everyone has experienced. You can be privileged in some ways without having a cakewalk of a life.

I think you sort of can. The first I read about white privilege, I thought, "Oh hell no! I'm making $8.00/hour, constantly harassed at work, where is that privilege?" Then I remembered the time I jumped out of a cop car at 17. It was treated as an adorable joke by the police. (It is in fact a felony.) I don't think a 17 year old black girl would've gotten the same fuzzy treatment. So there was a little white privilege working for me.

Yeah, I came to this realization as well. You could also say that people have an advantage over the disabled, for example. (not that that isn't weird to say in this conversation, because frankly, the majority of people aren't born crippled) Privilege is literally just a word that means a special or unusual advantage. How they use it is meant to insult, basically.

They aren't hurting their cause, though. The use of jargon makes them a sort of avant garde in group, and obviously they incorporate it into the culture of exclusivity. Speaking the language is inclusive to those who share it. Like pig latin in 7th grade.

I think there's a difference between "privilege" as you use it to describe having the ability to do things others can't and "privilege" in the sense of society deeming neutral qualities unequally desirable. For example, it's socially acceptable for a man to blatantly, overtly, and rudely hit on a woman where as not so much in the converse situation for several reasons: It's acceptable to reduce women to female objects--not so much with men; as a man, it's acceptable to have an overt sexuality--not so much with women. I should have a "more" in front of both of those "acceptable"s because I think both attitudes are in a state of flux currently, not enough for me to say there still isn't a difference but enough for me to say that it's not as hugely different as it used to be. But the privilege that exists here is 1) the privilege for men to know they're not going to be easily reduced to one part of their person, or the lack of that same privilege for women; 2) the privilege of being open about their sexuality, or lack thereof for women; 3) the privilege of knowing other people are going to respect you enough to not make catcalls, or lack thereof for women; and if you really want to push it 4) the privilege of feeling like your opinion is worth saying, or lack thereof for women.

I'll admit some of those are a bit debatable, and I can see what you're saying about female disadvantage, but to me that just seems like an argument of semantics. Either way, there is a socially driven difference in value given to different attributes that, naturally, are neutral.

I don't agree. It may not be true in every situation, but there are lot's of situations where it happens and I think situations determine when it happens equally so if not more than the type of person a man is. I walk to school every day and get honked at least once a week and while I'm sure occasionally someone is saying "Oh hey, watch out there's a car here!" I'd be willing to bet money that many of them aren't. Any place where alcohol is present at all--parties, clubs, bars, and while you can say that those are environments that encourage that kind of attitude, I put forth that 1. there's a way to hit on someone in a way that's not rude and 2. you find an disproportionate amount of men overtly coming onto women that they've not even talked to than the other way around. You can call anecdotal evidence on that if you want, but from the conversations I've had and the experiences I've had, I believe it. Furthermore, any situation in which people are loud and excitable--sporting events, concerts, etc, again you find the same dichotomy. I've seen lots of good men resort to absolutely vile cat-calling because of the environment we were in. Add to that things like Greek life, which are certainly not dominated by low-education male subcultures and you've got a huge kink your statement. And if you remove the "blatantly" and "overtly" from that phrase, it is even more applicable to society.

I don't mean to imply that every man does this; I don't think that's the case, but socially acceptable things don't really apply to the individual. It's more about the way others respond to what an individual does. It's acceptable for a guy at a bar to assume I'm there because I want to have sex and to make comments based on that assumption. It's so normalized that women are actually taught to expect it--People don't react in an appalled manner when you tell them about the super forward guy who talked to you in a bar and women who are hit on by a creepy guy are just expected to leave or put up with it; they're scrutinized if they make a big deal out of it. Guys like that may not be the norm, but they are not shunned either and that's where the socially acceptable claim comes in. Guys can make comments like that all they want, and, so long as they don't do it in a harassing manner (say repeatedly doing it), can feel like they've done nothing wrong and are unlikely to be called out or shunned by anyone who's not the recipient of the remarks (or her good friends) because of it.

Edit: What I mean about socially acceptability not applying to the individual is that it doesn't matter what an individual does, but how individuals respond to another actions, what thoughts they have about it, whether or not they will make excuses for it, what they will accept other people doing, etc.

you find an disproportionate amount of men overtly coming onto women that they've not even talked to than the other way around.

Yes, because most women don't have to initiate contact with men, they can sit around and wait for the men to come to them, having their choice of suitors to pick from. Very few heterosexual men have that luxury. Most men would be thrilled to have a strange woman come out of nowhere and start hitting on them, even if they weren't attracted to her, they would still be extremely flattered.

Sure, lots of men go about it in all the wrong ways. Until recently there hasn't been much advice for men on how to approach women except useless (and often counter-prductive) platitudes like "be a gentleman" or "try to be friends first." So, of course some men will make many faux pas, especially if they are new on the dating scene and don't have a natural talent for social graces.

What makes you think there would not be a similar proportion of women behaving the same way if society required women to be initiators in the dating game the way it does with men now? It's not as if women aren't rude in other ways.

You're kind of proving my point. Women are expected to sit back and wait and to flirt demurely because a girl that flirts overtly is too forward. You've clearly never sat in a room of women talking about sex or guys if you believe that women don't want to overtly flirt with guys. There probably would be women who did things in the same proportions as men if the situation was reversed, but that wouldn't be any better than the situation I'm talking about now, and would still be objectifying and a form of privilege, only for women instead of men. None of your points are really counterpoints. I'm not championing the goodness of women and saying they aren't rude and they're perfect lovely demure goddesses. I'm saying that the social attitudes towards men and women performing the same tasks are different, and that's where privilege enters the picture.

It's acceptable to reduce women to female objects--not so much with men;

Really? I've never heard men complain about women looking at pictures of nude or scantily clad men, unless those men were religious rightists who have a puritannical and prudish view of all sexuality.

as a man, it's acceptable to have an overt sexuality--not so much with women.

That sounds like the opposite of reality to me. There are far more places where a woman can wear a miniskirt than there are where a man can wear shorts. There are far more places where a woman can display clevage than whatever the equivalent for a man might be. There are places where a woman can flirt and have it be considered cute where it would be looked at as seriously inappropriate, and possibly sexual harassment, if a man did it.

Objectification is not about looking at porn, it's about reducing someone to a single aspect of their person and taking away their agency. Calling out someone's looks in a public manner does that.

What women wear is separate from their sexuality. How short a girls skirt is, how much cleavage she shows does not determine how sexually active she is.

There are places where women can flirt yes, but I'm talking about direct flirtation, as in making a comment about having sex with the recipient of the comment. Women are supposed to flirt subtly, through coyness, batting eyelashes, other subtle bullshit. If a girl went up to someone they didn't know or had just met and asked if they wanted to have sex with her or some other comment about sex, then yeah maybe she'd get laid and maybe the guy wouldn't treat her like dirt, but how many people around her who heard her ask would make comments about her being a slut or other derogatory things? If a guy goes up to a girl he doesn't know/just met and makes the same comment, how many people around him would make the same comments? How many people would call him confident? What about her? How many people would view his comment as a joke and make excuses for his forwardness/rudenes? What about her? That's where social acceptance comes into play: other people respond differently to a woman and a man making the exact same comments in the exact same situation.

Objectification is not about looking at porn, it's about reducing someone to a single aspect of their person and taking away their agency. Calling out someone's looks in a public manner does that.

I think it's an exaggeration to say having your looks insulted in public "takes away [your] agency" - the President of the United States or the CEO of Exxon-Mobil would not lose their positions as a result of someone shouting "you're ugly" or "your ass is fat." (Nor would the Chancellor of Germany or CEO of Hewlett Packard who are women). It is a nasty thing to do, of course, but I don't see men doing that more than women engage in male-bashing generally, which may or may not include insults to physical appearance. How much each is tolerated has to do with the crowd around you.

What women wear is separate from their sexuality. How short a girls skirt is, how much cleavage she shows does not determine how sexually active she is.

But women can dress in ways that express sexuality, and be perfectly acceptable, in many situations where men doing the same would be seen as sleazy freaks.

If a girl went up to someone they didn't know or had just met and asked if they wanted to have sex with her or some other comment about sex, then yeah maybe she'd get laid and maybe the guy wouldn't treat her like dirt,

Where in the reverse situation, unless he was an incredibly handsome celebrity, he'd have a very high chance of being slapped in the face, or worse.

but how many people around her who heard her ask would make comments about her being a slut or other derogatory things?

Probably fewer than would call a man in the reverse situation a creep. And there could be more serious consequences like being brought up on sexual harassment charges.

Are there serious consequences for being seen as a slut? Was the cop who made the remarks that launched Slutwalk right after all? If so, then you are more likely to get raped for dressing, looking, or acting in a way that causes you to be perceived as a slut, but that's been vigorously denied to be true, so in the absence of evidence I'll assume it's not. Do that cop and others who give similar advice think "sluts" deserve to be raped? If they did why would they give them advice that they think would help them not get raped? The advice may be wrong, and likely is, and I understand why people distrust the motives of cop generally, but this seems to be well intended. At least it's no worse than insisting that teaching innocent men to be ashamed of their sexuality and afraid to approach women (more than they are naturally) will somehow convince brutal, violent psychopaths not to rape.

I'm not talking about insulting, i'm talking about catcalls specifically and they do remove women's agency by singling out their use as a sexual object. You're examples don't prove anything; it's like talking about white privilege and saying you mean Obama has less privilege than this random homeless white guy. You can throw out examples of powerful people whose agency would be more difficult to take away, but discussions like this aren't about the few with lots of power, they're about the average individual of the group. You're never going to be able to remove the agency of the one percent, but that takes the discussion into classism and I refuse to go on that tangent.

How exactly would a man have to dress to be seen as a "sleazy freak"? There really aren't a ton of ways men can dress to "express their sexuality" in our culture because there's an understood sexuality to maleness. We've all heard the machismo, super-sexed, responds to boobs like a dog in heat stereotype which also has its detriments and discussions about privilege, but is also a tangent I'm not going into.

I think you highly underestimate the power of charisma and confidence. My examples may have been slightly more-direct than someone would use, but still only slightly. If you say something with the right attitude, people will forgive a lot and a guy who says something like no is not an option will be given a lot. Look at movies like Crazy Stupid Love: Gosling says something like he knows everything and shits gold, girls swoon, sex ensues, wash, rinse, repeat. Obviously it's a movie and Gosling's experiences aren't representative of the average. But the point is that the average person, both male and female will look at what Gosling does and say "Oh yeah good for him! He's a confident playboy" and girls will appropriately swoon and guys will want to be him, whatever. Now look at a movie like Easy A, where a girl does something similar, except without the actual sex part: her sexuality becomes public and people reject her.

You're right in that a confident girl can go up to a guy and say just about anything a confident guy could say to a girl and both would probably end up getting laid, but think about the next day conversations with friends: unless the confident guy is bad in bed, the conversation is probably going to be neutral or positive but the conversation about the confident girl is significantly more likely to include negative terms like "slut" even if she was great in bed.

I'm not talking about insulting, i'm talking about catcalls specifically and they do remove women's agency by singling out their use as a sexual object.

Agency is power or the ability to carry out actions. What powers or abilities do you lose when catcalled? What can you not do that you would otherwise be able to?

You're examples don't prove anything; it's like talking about white privilege and saying you mean Obama has less privilege than this random homeless white guy.

So does that mean that when assessing the validity patriarchy theory and male privilege you will look at the glass cellar as well as the glass ceiling? Also, when it comes to less easily disputed forms of privilege, like white privilege in a white majority society, your example shows that just because one group has privilege over another group on average does not mean that every individual in the privileged group shares that privilege. This is why using terms like "check your privilege" to police the speech and opinions of most white individuals is a nonsensical insult.

How exactly would a man have to dress to be seen as a "sleazy freak"?

Almost every type of sexy clothing for men is associated with homosexuality, which is OK if one is gay but not something most straight men want to be mistaken for, and in most cases gay men couldn't get away with wearing such outfits outside of clubs, pride parades, and the like. Men's tank tops, leather jackets, tight, ripped jeans, and tight fitting tuxedos could all be considered somewhat sexy without being considered gay, but less so than what women wear in every environment from the gym to a formal office setting. "But women have to look sexy," you say. Not really, but I won't deny there is some pressure in that direction. I will concede this is a case of both sexes having choices constrained in opposite ways.

We've all heard the machismo, super-sexed, responds to boobs like a dog in heat stereotype

Yes, a figure of ridicule, often called a creep, sometimes punished, never respected.

Movie examples prove nothing. The scenario in Crazy Stupid Love may be more realistic than elves, wizards, superheroes, and time travel, but in real life how many men other than Ryan Gosling himself and stars of his caliber could pull off what his characters do? A few, but then a few people win big lottery jackpots. Easy A is about high school kids, stuck in the prison-like environment of compulsory schooling, looking for a scapegoat and an excuse to be cruel anywhere they can find it. A woman in her 20s through 40s (and maybe even 50s) would have a much better chance of being popular.

think about the next day conversations with friends: unless the confident guy is bad in bed, the conversation is probably going to be neutral or positive but the conversation about the confident girl is significantly more likely to include negative terms like "slut" even if she was great in bed.

Most men (that is to say males 18 or over, who have graduated high school and/or entered the work force) generally only use the term “slut” in a playful or joking way. There is the previously mentioned misguided rape advice, but that’s not so much calling women sluts as warning them against actions that would cause others to see them that way. There are, of course, exceptions, but I doubt there are more of them than there are people of both sexes who use the term "creep" in deragatory way, while at the same time shaming men for being virgins. If the guys in your life call women sluts without irony, it is either because of your age and the age or your peer group, or because you’re hanging with the wrong crowd; maybe both.

I have heard women call other women sluts with malice. These are usually gold-diggers or excessive favor-seekers who are trying to keep up cartel prices for the golden vag. The only thing that might possibly convince any one of them to stop is winding up on the other side of the shaming, but for that to happen others still have to be doing it. Try to avoid them, when and if possible.

You're kind of proving my point. Women are expected to sit back and wait and to flirt demurely because a girl that flirts overtly is too forward. You've clearly never sat in a room of women talking about sex or guys if you believe that women don't want to overtly flirt with guys.

Vincent [a woman who went undercover disguised as a man] even dabbled in the art of picking up women and agreed to wear a hidden camera for "20/20" during her exploits.
She was quickly reminded that in this arena, it's women who have the power, she said.
"In fact, we sit there and we just with one word, 'no,' will crush someone," she said. "We don't have to do the part where you cross the room and you go up to a stranger that you've never met in the middle of a room full of people and say the first words. And those first words are so hard to say without sounding like a cheeseball or sounding like a jerk."

The system sucks for men and women, but women can do more about it. You could overcome your fears and take the risks that men have always had to take. What can men do? Not slut shame? I don’t do that anyway. Convince other men not to slut shame? Will men who slut shame listen to me? I’d give it a 50% chance at best. Convince women not to slut shame? If you think that’s even remotely possible, explain to me how.

You've got a lot there, so I'm going to kind of parse things out and respond in a couple separate post because it's a little too much to keep it all jumbled together.

On catcalls:
You lose the ability to be anything other than a sex object to the person that cat-called you, and you may be reduced nearly to that in the eyes of observers because it is specifically meant to point oyut "Hey, she would make a great sex object" Cat calls are even worse than insults because they are a form of compliment, even if it's a rude compliment. The only way to respond to a cat-call (unless it's a particularly vulgar catcall) is just by ignoring them or smiling. There is no agency is that. You can't say something to change that individuals mind about you or say hey your a jackass because if they're just whistling or calling you hot, then you're kind of an asshole for saying that. There's also the fact that it can be done at any time in a public forum (this time meaning outside or non-personal forums) and you're opinion or desire for it in no way comes into play. That can remove the agency of anyone, but I think in this specific instance it would remove the agency of women more so than men because there is a history of sexual objectification of women more so than men. It doesn't matter how far beyond that objectification we are (I'd say we're working there, but not at it yet), a cat-call incites that history because we all know that traditionally women were for sex, babies, and house care and that's it. That history makes it easier to reduce a woman to her sexual use than a man.

It (the catcall not the history) also brings up approval: It's essentially a man saying I approve of the way you look and, conversely if you don't get cat-called it means I dont' actively approve of or care about the way you look. I don't mean that in the sense that men need to cat-call to show women they approve of them, but in the sense of a specific instance where a man has cat-called to a woman, but not to other women in the vicinity, then that approval is brought up as well. A lot of the stuff that I'm talking about is more about social trends than individual instances. I'm talking on a statistics scale not on an interpersonal scale. Statistics never apply to the individual, and in that case, most of what I'm saying doesn't apply to the individual: a woman being cat-called at once isn't going to have a huge affect on the way she thinks, feels about herself, etc. But being cat-called regularly will because every time she is the recipient of a cat call, her sexual use is brought to the fore-front.

On the glass-cellar: That is not a concept I've heard before, and is an interesting read, but I'm not trying to assess the validity of male patriarchy. I concede that the concept of privilege is complex, hard to discuss and has a ton of caveats. I also agree that the phrase "check your privilege" is dumb and helps no one do anything; all it does is make the speaker look overly assumptive and doesn't help the recipient of the comment actually understand anything about privilege. In regards to the points within the article: pure affirmative action is hardly ever found. Usually, affirmative action is only implemented in the cases of blatant discrimination: a company never highers black people, or only highers them in the "lowly" positions and never gives them raises, only highers them for back room work, etc. Most companies don't higher like that and won't get punished unless it's demonstrated that they are favoring a group of individuals (for instance, a Walmart received hell several months ago for choosing only white individuals for raises over several qualified black individuals). Affirmative Action is not about going out and forcing industries to higher minorities. It's about giving minorities a fair chance in the bidding pool. I've never heard of a company getting in trouble for not hiring women when there were no female applicants. If you know of some comparable example, feel free to share.

On to men!
I think you're point about men not having a real way to express their sexuality through clothing is spot on. Even for gay men, they have the option of wearing pink or wearing hot shorts and that's essentially the extent of it. Society just pigeon holes both genders into what is acceptable for them to wear, and I think both are wrong. You mentioned female privilege, and I think this would be a first rate example because it's not as socially acceptable for men to be concerned about their appearance as women, and even when they are, their choices within that are severely limited. A man who wears a skirt is ridiculed, a man who wears accessories (especially "non masculine ones") is ridiculed, a man who wears make up is ridiculed, a man who does anything close to what women do in dress for fun or expression is objectified. And I think sexuality and dress are much more closely tied for men than for women because a man who's concerned with his looks or does anything listed is gay, period, end of discussion. THe only thing a woman can do to demonstrate her sexuality (at least in societies eyes) is cut their hair off and wear mens shorts.

I live in a town with a really extensive bar/club scene and, risking drawing too heavily from anecdotal evidence, I've seen numerous examples of guys doing things like Gosling from Crazy Stupid Love and getting rewarded for it. I also don't think you're correct in saying that older men only say slut in a playful way, especially not in a club/bar scene. I agree with you in that women are probably more deprecating of other women's sexuality than men are though.

What's stopping women forwardly hitting on men is social norms and nothing else. Women are very rarely portrayed as forward or having agency in their own sex life in the media. Sex and the City aside (which I've never seen, so I don't even know how applicable of a counter example it is), rom-coms, romances, action movies, they over-whelmingly show women waiting for men to approach them. I believe you in saying that men get rejected, but this has gotten a lot bigger than my initial point which was that priviledge does exist, it's just subtle. Like you say, both sexes are kind of up shit creek without a paddle because they've been pidgeon holed into certain roles. I do not agree with the point about women having power though. Women only have power in who among the people who approach them they have sex with or approve of. Men can simply not approach a woman and he's taken her power away from her. Saying "no" to having sex with someone is not a form of power or privilege. It is control over what you do with your own body and there is no privilege in being about to say no to someone that wants to have sex with you.

I’ll admit that most of what you say about cat-calling is probably true. The idea that “You lose the ability to be anything other than a sex object to the person that cat-called you, and … observers …" seems at first glance like reading too much into the motives of simpletons. I know there have been studies done about objectification, though, so maybe there is some evidence that this is true. I think it’s a stretch to connect the calls to “babies, and house care”, though if guys making those noises really are thinking about how you would make a good mother and housewife then at least they have some things they think you’re good for other than being a sex object.

As for you why you think this is a privilege, is it because it doesn’t happen to men, because women can’t get away with it, or some other reason? I’m pretty sure men do get cat-called by other men, though it is less common, so you can put that in the male advantage column but I doubt it outweighs the risks men face in terms of being threatened or violently attacked in non-sexual ways. Women for the most part choose not to cat-call, but I doubt those who did would face any more serious consequences than men who do, unless you have evidence showing otherwise.

In regards to the points within the article: pure affirmative action is hardly ever found.

He simplified the concept of affirmative action to make a point: the low percentage of women in the top jobs is often held up as proof of inequality (regardless of how many women actually want or try to get those positions) while the much lower percentage of women in the most dangerous jobs is often overlooked. Why this is important is that to focus on men’s apparent success at the top without accounting for the risks men take at all levels of the workforce, whether in the form of direct bodily harm or illness causing stress, gives an unbalanced picture.

I haven’t seen Crazy, Stupid, Love so I might have pictured Gosling’s character as being more obnoxious than he was. In any case, if women are rewarding men who act the way he did (and other men are praising them because women are rewarding them), who really has the privilege? How many of the men who act that way do it because it comes naturally and how many do it because they’ve learned that’s the only approach that works? For men who are naturally extroverted and confident it may be great, but for those of us who are not learning to act like we are is no more of a privilege than wearing high heels and make up are for women.

I also don't think you're correct in saying that older men only say slut in a playful way

You may be right. Unfortunately, I doubt there is any reliable way know how common it’s derogatory usage is. I’ve rarely heard the word IRL since high school. On the internet I’ve seen it mostly in discussions like we’re having now, or as a general insult, where the person saying has no idea (and probably doesn’t care) about the target’s sexual history, but expects the word will get a certain reaction.

Women are very rarely portrayed as forward or having agency in their own sex life in the media.

I hope that most people – women or men – are not relying too much on the media to tell them how to run their lives.

I do not agree with the point about women having power though.

That was a direct quote from Norah Vincent, who has lived all of her life as a woman and experienced what it was like to be a man. She didn’t say, and I don’t think, that women have all the power but yes women do have considerable power in the dating arena. Being able to say “no” is not a privilege. Being able to get what you want without ever having to put yourself in a position to be told “no” is.

I hope that most people – women or men – are not relying too much on the media to tell them how to run their lives.

I think these two snippets encompasses a lot of the difficulties people have in grasping this concept of privilege: it is completely unconscious and so ingrained as to go unnoticed. It rarely nowadays manifests itself as blatant prejudice. Have you ever heard someone under the age of 50 says "A woman's place is in the kitchen" in all seriousness? I've met one, and everyone knew he was dumb and no one gave him any credit because he was obviously a bigoted asshole. But that doesn't mean we're a post prejudice society either because as I said it's more subtle, internalized and unconscious now. A guy who makes a catcall at a woman is not thinking "If I whistle at her, I'm going to make her know that her rightful place is in my bed, on my dick, and with her mouth shut." He's thinking "Damn, she's hot, I'm bored, I might as well show my appreciation." But in the act of doing that, he's still calling attention to her body and only her body, essentially creating tunnel vision of the people within listening distance in that moment onto her sexual potential. It'll pass, she'll forget about it, he'll forget about, no harm no foul (I almost typed "fowl"). But then it'll happen to her again, some time down the road, and again, and again until eventually she'll have an unconcious association with dressing a certain way and being reduced to her sexual promise, until it forms an implicit association.

Everybody has these implicit associations, and they are, believe it or not, very very very heavily influenced by the media around us for the simple reason that the media is a controlled gaze. You watch something in the media--every kind of media, be it tv, news, movies, music, magazines, advertisements, whatever--and you are seeing things exactly how the creator want you to see them. Like you said, few people are intentionally modelling their lives after this tv show or that movie. But when you see a hundred movies--say romantic movies, that you as a woman are told by everyone you have to watch because it's a girl thing--that have female characters in the same roles--doe eyed, virginal until the guy says the right thing, submissive, pleasing, motherly, whatever--then that implicit association is made. As you've pointed out, the same can be said for guys--romance movies also paint guys in the same place over and over and over again. Mass media is made to fit into a model that society will like, that's why you get copies of the same thing over and over and over again and they continue the same tired stereotypes that are still based, even if only fundamentally, on the same one's that have been around since the invention of mass media. Even a lot of "female empowering" things are surprisingly not. Disney's Mulan for instance, when you break it down isn't all that empowering--she hardly does a lot of the things herself, instead just setting up for Mushu or male protagonist or the other guys to do things and in the end, she still just ends up being a wife/girlfriend like she's supposed to be. Yeah, she does some things that break the mold of women stereotypes, but in the end, she falls back into that mold. Another relevant thing to bring up would be the Bechdel test, which is simply some test a woman a while back made up that is simply "A movie passes if it has two or more female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man." You'd be surprised how many films fail that test. And again, I dont' think people do it on purpose (at least not most of them); all of it is just a newer manifestation of the same roles we've had for a very long time.

And (sorry if this is getting a tad confusing) going back to implicit associations, I bet if you did a survey of television shows and stuff, you'd find the most stringent and strict gender roles in kids television shows. I can think of several off hand that my sister watches that eggregiously rely on "girls are supposed to be pretty and like make up and only talk about boys; boys are supposed to be sportsy, macho, nonchalant, and emotionless." And that age, probably 8 to 15 is when you form a lot of your implicit biases that you hold for your entire life.

Now, onto one of the other points I think you've tried to make and I haven't addressed really yet: I think you are right in how few and strict male stereotypes are and I think others are correct in saying that the study of privilege and stereotyping and stuff hasn't delved into the stereotypes of men nearly enough. I do think that's a side-effect of this discussion of privilege that is going on in academia right now: it's literally focusing in on the men who have privilege as The Men and pretty much ignoring everyone else that qualifies as a man. The discussion of privilege has opened up the doors to women to branch out but there are still a lot of those doors--ones that are just as detrimental and pidgeon-holing and wrong--that are closed for men, and it's absolutely wrong of individuals to act like those problems don't exist.

I am loathe to talk about Men's Rights Advocates because I think they base too much of their arguments and battles on denying that there is a fucked up attitude towards women in our society and derailing legitimate arguments to say "yeah but what about the mens" and not in a productive way. But, I do think there needs to be something for men because just as it's wrong for women to be held up to beach babes and completely submissive trophy wives who don't have any opinions, it's wrong for men to be held up to the oafish or overtly sexual manly men that are portrayed in the media alongside those women. It's a fucked up social outlook and I think it's about time that the spotlight be trained more on stereotypes and implicit associations we have for all people and not just women.

Being able to say “no” is not a privilege. Being able to get what you want without ever having to put yourself in a position to be told “no” is.

This is a really interesting way of looking at it and I'm glad you said it. It's not a point of view I'd thought about.

It seems we are not as far apart as I thought at first. I see you have a more balanced view of privilege than the people the OP was complaining about. Most of the people I have encountered using the word and concept in socio-political discussions have been like those the OP described. Because of that when I see or hear the word my gut reaction is usually "Here comes another lecture from the PC police." You have helped me look beyond that.

It's so damn tacky and accusatory. It implies, depending on the privileged group, explicitly or implicitly that the group in question is invisibly oppressing the other groups without actively participating in discriminating actions - hell, basically by just existing in comparison.

Eh I don't quite buy this for most of the time they use privilege. Although they sometimes just flat out call one group the oppressed and another group the oppressors so it's a moot point.

Now in the soft sciences defense certain social and sociology studies can be tested, repeated, and falsified but they require longer term study and larger test pools.

The problem is the arm chair sociology majors that will latch on to every little report and spread it through the blog-o-sphere before something goes through the proper vetting.

Respectable sociologists will agree with you that theories need to be highly tested, peer reviewed, and have repeatable results. It is not the respectable sociologists that masquerade philosophy as science it is the sudo/charlatan sociologists. The problem arises that some of these charlatan sociologists have gotten themselves into academia. This needs to be corrected.

I don't see any deconstructions of the concept of privilege, or a better theory offered by the OP in his post. What I see is someone who is talking out of their ass.

I think the point people are making is that the socio-feminist view of that word is a total mutilation of its actual meaning. While you could argue that academic cliques are entitled to their specific jargon that experts use, there is a problem that arises is when you try an convince everyone not in the clique that your premise about society is true.

More over the problem with this "privilege" or standpoint epistemology is that your effectively betting on a horse race after its over. It looks like nothing more then dream interpretation since it can't really predict the experiences of any person. If anyone deviates from the predicted experiences someone of their group should experience, then clearly they have "internalized misogyny/racism," which isn't really on par with scientific rigor. More or less the problem with this sort of thinking is there is no dispassionate, objective, and empirical way to analyze it. Because even when one points out that the supposed shared experiences of say "woman kind," are not universal, or even necessarily a majority or a plural majority, then wouldn't Standpoint epistemology thinking fall apart? Apparently know since defenders of this sort of thinking have declared a convenient cop out for any possible hole or means of falsifying this theory. Basically its akin to a hardcore creationist who has declared all evidence contrary to biblical literal-ism to be tricks planted there by Satan himself. Under that sort of thinking and logic, sure you are definitively right, and your premise 100% correct. But obviously any rational person could see that your thinking has a problem.

Are you serious? Privilege doesn't really predict anything, rather it "captures" a picture. But nevertheless, really?

Capturing a picture is fairly easy, anybody could theoretically take any incident and read it through their epidemiological lens to mean anything if someone wanted to. That is the problem with your using physics as a comparison. By your own admission this isn't exactly scientific since it doesn't have any predictive usefulness.

Now, I'm okay with you rejecting privilege and coming up with some other theory to capture that picture....but you can still use data and draw meaningful parallels between privilege and the real world.

In a political sense though your going about the debate all wrong. The black children can easily be argued to be disadvantaged. They attend schools that are under funded, poorly staffed, ect... ideally everyone would have access to some decent level of education.

You can predict the experience of any person. People aren't special. There are always outliers, but most people fit into averages. If you have enough information, you can usually make pretty accurate predictions about people.

You can easily predict various things, but can you predict how someone aught to feel about it? It seems rather manipulative honestly. Because Its a known fact the human memories are fallible, and you can with ease convince people things are something or meant something.

Given the right atmosphere and convincing you can more or less manipulate anyone to have the same experiences and have those experiences mean the same thing. You can point out that many people will have similar experiences but will they interpret it the same way? Probably not. More over creating an epistemological lens that reads the world a specific way is a way of manipulating the meaning of ones memories.

Again, I can go dig up the CPS models. I haven't run any T-tests or anything, but I bet you'll find a significant disparity between graduation rates between whites vs. blacks, and that's just within the shitty CPS. It gets even worse when you compare CPS vs. suburban schools, where the Grad rates go from an average of like 50% to 80+%.

That is likely some factual data, that doesn't however lend any credence to some concept of "privilege." Nor does it seem to really help people focus on the clear civic issue of ensuring schools are properly funded and staffed. Since right now instead of discussing that issue we are debating the proper definition of a word or the usefulness of an epistemological lens.

Privilege is just a way to examine those mounds of evidence....and I never said anything to the contrary. You're free to not accept privilege, but then...you better have something else in mind. Because people are going to start throwing ugly numbers your way, and it's going to get ugly fast.

Easy, Privilege is a terrible concept that is ultimately self defeating and doesn't seem to serve any purpose in actually helping anyone. Beyond giving a handful of so-called advocates a moral high horse and creating muddy waters and ethnic tension.

Perhaps we should address these issues as common civic concerns?

Schools in the inner cities are poorly funded.

Our economy is poorly structured.

ect ect ect... these are problems that can be easily defined with the English language not needing to be butchered and rewritten. We could argue till the end of days about what privilege means or is or isn't but nobody will have accomplished much in the mean time.

point of order, nowhere did the user above claim that sociology/feminism was a hard science. it was a comparison. if he had used an Am Lit professor walking in on someone saying "Who gives a shit about Franklin's Autobiography anyway? What a boring old asshat" it'd be the same point and you wouldn't have a kneejerk "NOTASCIENCE" reaction to fall back on.

That's funny, that's how I feel when I show up to SRSSucks and I see people joking about suicide and linking to images saying, "this is what SRSers look like."

I challenge you to find 3 examples of that in that subreddit.

In the real world, if you want to persuade an audience, you're better off presenting an argument respectfully than presenting an argument as an insult. Especially when the crux of your argument is that we should care about a certain group of people that we've never met.

what about the mean stuff in the OP? frogma's reply to the top comment? this is the only person you've called out for being 'mean' in this thread while not even being close to the only person to exhibit it. what makes this post unique isn't the mean-ness, it's the candid defense of feminism. so why did you single it out for criticism? ಠ_ಠ

Trolling language by "AntiSRSrs" seems to be cracked down on these days by you Mods. Calling people a fool, sounds like a personal attack.

i wasn't the only mod tempted to pull the thread, don't worry. as it is, it's still difficult to say it's all ok, but the signal to noise ratio, as you've pointed out, is really high for a troll. it's also one of the only substantial answers from another perspective.

This may be a good explanation of what "privilege" means as a term of art among some social scientist, but it has only a tenuous connection to typical usage among the "social justice" crowd. Meaning depends on usage. The OP isn't ignorant for reacting to the word as it is actually used in practice.

Yes, "social justice" warriors generally use the term to shut down discussion. Claiming that if you're "privileged" your opinion doesn't count and any dissent from "social justice" doctrine is a "derail." Googling "check your privilege" or "derailing for dummies" will make this clear.

Also:

It implies, depending on the privileged group, explicitly or implicitly that the group in question is invisibly oppressing the other groups without actively participating in discriminating actions - hell, basically by just existing in comparison.

No it doesn't.

Quite often it does. As when feminists say "men as a class are oppressing us" or "all men benefit from rape culture."

"Men in all classes and of all races and ethnicities rape, which is not to say that all men rape. It is to say that all men benefit from rape, because all men benefit from the fact that women are not free in this society; that women cower; that women are afraid; that women cannot assert the rights that we have, limited as those rights are, because of the ubiquitous presence of rape."

Assuming that being black makes you statistically more likely to be oppressed than being white, how does banning racist jokes make anything better. I've seen plenty of opinion editorials on CNN and Slate saying that our PC culture has done nothing but drive racism underground.

Likewise, why should a white person's argument be considered less credible than a black person's argument, solely because of their race? Why is the progressive stack important?

More directly, why is race considered the dominant factor when figuring out how oppressed someone is? Why isn't the dominant factor the neighborhood that someone grew up in? Why isn't the dominant factor the guy who grew up in a gang and saw his friends die? I'm pretty sure that Eminem was more oppressed growing up than Oprah. I'm pretty sure that a white dude who was killed by a bunch of black people is just as oppressed as a black dude who was killed by a bunch of white people.

What I'm trying to say is that the concept of privilege implies that characteristics such as race and gender are correlated with oppression, but they do not cause oppression.

Yes, it's called Intersectionality. You all are still hung up on Privilege, which is like week one of sociology 100. It's not my fault you are all hung up on week one stuff.

Intersectionality looks at race, gender, and sexual orientation. The model states that for a given axis, you're either in a privileged group or a non-privileged group.

In other words, if you're white, then you can't be considered oppressed due to your whiteness. If you're male, then you can't be considered oppressed due to your male-ness. If you're straight, you can't be considered oppressed due to your straightness. This is what the intersectionality and privilege model, as applied by SRS, states.

So if the prison system statistically discriminates against men, after factoring out race and class, then the intersectional model states that men cannot be considered oppressed, despite this clear evidence that states otherwise.

Likewise, many economists note that poverty levels in black communities correlate to anti-intellectualism in those communities. However, the privilege and intersectionality model, as applied by SRS, states that we cannot think of it in those terms. We have to think that all the oppression that black people face comes from white people, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that these sociological models, as applied by SRS, commit some grave sins when it comes mixing up correlation with causation, and these models do not let you understand the issue any further.

Bitcrunch removed a comment by Rexthunder saying that he could dox SRSers in retaliation (which we spoke up against)

In response to a posted video, I pointed out that one of the people in the video was a prominent FreeThoughtBlogs blogger, referred to her by her first and last name, and pointed out that she is a Redditor. This is the thread that Dacvak pointed me to.

There have been no other times when admins have intervened, so #3 has got to be the reason.

Some questions one asks in order to tee someone up in order to bash them further with a baseball bat.

This is not that kind of comment.

Did you mention the redditor's account name here on Reddit, along with their real life name, in proximity to each other?

I'm just wondering when this becomes illegal:

"Neil DeGrasse Tyson ..."

"... is a redditor ..."

"... named <some name>"

Or if this never becomes illegal because I can just search for the AMA?

Is saying VA's real name grounds for a ban?

Do you have to say it in the same sentence as "VA"?

I don't care what the answer is, but I would paraphrase Dr. Strangelove and say that you can't deter crime by making things illegal if you don't tell people what they are. If you don't tell them, you just make them afraid to say anything, and create allegations of targeted enforcement.

Enough people don't like me now that I figure that anything suspect I say will get me reported, in the hopes that what I said is illegal. This is not how things should work.

This reminds me of when Himmelreich was banned for "doxxing" teefs. Himmelreich linked teef's Reddit account with a SomethingAwful account, and pointed out how some messed up things occurred in her life.

No name, no address, no personally identifying information.

And then later on, the Archangelles cracked down on BeelzebubsBarrister because he wanted to know if an SRSHome leaker could link the Archangelle accounts with their regular accounts. No admins were involved, but the archangelles called that a dox request, and said that it was completely inappropriate.